Since its publication in 1925, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby – initially a disappointment and now generally considered the author’s magnum opus – has been adapted into various other media, the most notable being Jack Clayton’s 1974 screen version with a script by Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Redford as the great Gatsby himself. Considering the mixed reception it gained, many thought that Fitzgerald’s novel could never be truly adapted for the big screen, so what does Australian director Baz Luhrmann bring to the table that we haven’t seen before?

In the summer of 1922, young bond salesman Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) rents a small house on Long Island, New York, in the (fictional) village of West Egg, next door to the lavish mansion of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mysterious millionaire who holds extravagant parties. As this friendship forms between Nick and Gatsby, the former finds out about the latter’s tragic passion for Nick’s cousin, the married Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan).

Published during the Roaring Twenties, the novel is an examination of what was going on at the time, as it dealt with the great growth of the American economy, while depicting the evolution of jazz music, flapper culture, and bootlegging and other criminal activity. However at the centre of the piece, given the politics going on in the 1920s, it’s a story of lost love and bad timing. Since the story is really one of inert drama, it does seem strange to get Baz Luhrmann to adapt it as his past work – from his contemporary MTV-styled version of Romeo + Juliet and the “spectacular, spectacular” musical Moulin Rouge! – is though brilliant, but over-the-top.

As an adaptation, Luhrmann and his co-writer Craig Pearce clearly have a love towards the novel which has been cut and paste to the film’s narrative, including Carraway’s narration which has been cinematically depicted as him typing his memoir. However, because the novel is told entirely through the narration with the events being seen through Nick’s perspective, the adaptation can go all over the place, especially in its more dramatic moments, as well as the deconstruction of Gatsby’s past.

No matter how intimate The Great Gatsby is, Luhrmann is all about the “spectacular, spectacular” as the work he has done before, is echoed here as the 1920s house parties are as wild and contemporary as the ravings of today’s nightclubs; most of the music here are by artists like Jay-Z and Jack White, with a slight hint of jazz. As always with Luhrmann’s repertoire, it is visually dazzling with praise towards Craig Armstrong’s cinematography and Catherine Martin’s design on sets and costumes, while the use of 3D actually enhances the spectacle. On the other hand, blending the modern visuals of Luhrmann’s direction and the intimacy of Fitzgerald’s period drama can result in an odd mix, with a tone that is initially challenging to understand.

Following a short line-up of actors stepping into the eponymous role of Jay Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio brings a level of greatness. While his performance is similar to his portrayal of Howard Hughes, DiCaprio captures the complexity of Gatsby as he is introduced as a cool, suave millionaire playboy, but due to his obsession of Daisy (played stunningly by Carey Mulligan), he shows some vulnerability as shown in the film’s best sequence, in which he is awkwardly reunited with her after being separated for five years. While Tobey Maguire has a charming enough voice to narrate the story as well as being a bit of a bystander, the supporting cast, primarily Australian, have their playful moments from Joel Edgerton’s menacing Tom Buchanan to Isla Fisher’s party-tastic Myrtle Wilson.

Ambitious but messy, and a difficult blend of spectacle and intimacy, this is a fine adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s cautionary tale of the American Dream, while Leonardo DiCaprio is indeed a great Gatsby.

As previously stated with in one of the many columns dedicated to the anticipation of the latest Lurman-Di DiCaprio combination ( not to mention the seventh Gatsby edition) i stated my own growing need to see this edition as well as my pros and cons. Today, my chance was released. Before the film began i commented on how rare it is for someone to go away from this experiences where in he will grow a structured criticism of the animal he has seen to have such a versatile range of material too work with. Going in to the viewing i was full expecting to see, in some degree, a sense of over whelming familiarity in the case of casting. Seen in films from Tim Burton, Tarantino, as well as an over kill upon sets, costume and above all musical numbers. I recall you to the comment made by or in reference to Lurman in which is stated "All life is in some forms a stage" or the Shakespeare quote "The world is a stage where each man plays his part". I found none of these . From the opening to the closing credits Lurman's take on F.Scott Fitzgerald s 20's classic felt, sung and moved with the velvet smoothness of an Charles-town step. The combination of breathtaking sets, music numbers, choreography and , of course, the out-standing cast performances , this take defiantly deserves high dues. Not only does Lurnans style allow for a sense of grandeur and enjoyment this also perfectly fits the versatile themes swimming through the film.His style , with ease, brought to the front Fitzgerald s themes of over indulgence of wealth, power and how one can become another , also how fast a star can fade with sub themes such as decadence, survival, and how some one can destroy another...

In sort, this edition was mesmerizing all all levels. Huge props to Mr. Lurman, DiCaprio and cast..

Above a huge thank-you and salute of excellence to the genus of Fitzgerald for whom this could never of taken place .

Saw it, didn't like it. It probably would have been brilliant without that soundtrack (which I really liked, they just didn't fit well together) and the voice tracks were too loud, none of the actual background noise could be heard, so it sounded like they were on stage.

'Gatsby' makes a deliberate (and successful) attempt to veer away from being a historical document, and the first half-hour in particular is a hypnotic, hyper-real hallucination of a film. All in all, it's a marvellous achievement, and this iteration belongs as much to Luhrmann as it does to Fitzgerald.

I thought this was a film site, but this critic seems to be more concerned with Fitzgerald's work. I don't care how it compares to the book - if I want the book I will read the book. I want to know if it's a good film. The novel is immaterial. I expect better from a publication for film fans. How disappointing.

Don't be so ridiculous, of course the novel's important to consider when reviewing an adaptation.

Not really though, a movie is still it's own thing unless you don't just notice the adaptation of it.

Agree up to a point, in his review yesterday Mark Kermode did make it clear that this is Baz Lerhmann's Great Gatsby, not F. Scott Fizgearlds.

The key is to either do something so completely different to the book or find some sort of happy middle ground, don't see the point in just bowing down to the novel and making a film with it in mind.

Then surely it should be judged as that. Otherwise the most relevant thing would see how something worked in the medium of the book (I heard Baz actually makes one character infinitely better with a change of character that is less dubiously anti-Semitic and with a brilliant casting) and how something works in the medium of film, and which one does a better job portraying that or not portraying that in its respective medium. Books and films are very different mediums.

Also, isn't just bowing down to the novel occasionally a good thing if it fits what the filmmaker wants to do? I mean I've seen good movies do that and that it worked well.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

Don't be so ridiculous, of course the novel's important to consider when reviewing an adaptation.

Not really though, a movie is still it's own thing unless you don't just notice the adaptation of it.

Well, of course a movie is its own thing. But if the book is important to the reviewer, and the reviewer has read the book, then it's perfectly acceptable to mention it during a review, because the book is the source and it might help to have some kind of cultural and historical context in terms of theme and so forth. That's all I meant. To ignore the source just because it's literary and "we only like films" seems odd and childish. I was really just expressing my exasperation at the poster's pissy, flouncy rant about Empire.

I thought this was a film site, but this critic seems to be more concerned with Fitzgerald's work. I don't care how it compares to the book - if I want the book I will read the book. I want to know if it's a good film. The novel is immaterial. I expect better from a publication for film fans. How disappointing.

What utter nonsense. Empire has reviewed the film, but has done so - properly - in the context of the source text. The Great Gatsby is probably the best known work of American Literature there is, beloved by millions. People will go to the film expecting to see an approximation of the novel, so calling it "immaterial" is remarkably short-sighted, and disrespectful to the author.

Let me put it this way: had the first Harry Potter film not reflected the book, do you really think the reviewer would neglect to mention it? Don't be so silly. Yes, there are some film adaptations that have been excellent despite differing greatly to the original novel (Kubrick's take on The Shining, for instance) but this still warrants mention in the review; in fact, even more so where the transfer to film is not faithful.

Anyway ... there was a churlish part of me incredibly satisfied to read this less-than-glowing review, having not liked a Luhrman film since Strictly Ballroom. The 'style over substance' described is what I've been bemoaning of him for years. I find his films incredibly chaotic and noisy, like extended MTV videos for ADHD sufferers. Romeo + Juliet (even then '+' irritates me) was bad enough but at least had Shakespeare's wonderful verse. Moulin Rouge was just unforgivable - utter vacuous shit with rubbish music and characters I actively disliked, Kidman being worst offender.

Just viewing the trailer for The Great Gatsby made me feel queasy. Another classic drowned under buckets of glitter and hip hop in an attempt to make it appeal to the yoof.

Thank you for your review, Empire; and for sitting through this so I don't have to. The stars are for the review, not the film.

Don't be so ridiculous, of course the novel's important to consider when reviewing an adaptation.

Not really though, a movie is still it's own thing unless you don't just notice the adaptation of it.

Yes, a film is its own entity and should be considered as such. But when it's an adaptation of an incredibly well known novel, you can't completely ignore the source material. If you do, it's not an adaptation at all; it's a 're-imagining'. Bearing in mind many will come to the film with expectations based on the original work, it is hardly unfair or unwise of the reviewer to draw some comparisons. The review is for public consumption, and the public is aware of the book.

Tristram seemed to accuse the writer of reviewing the film negatively simply because it deviated from the Fitzgerald novel. Given this is a professional film critic, I think he has enough nous to review the film based on how successfully it works as a film rather than just comparing it to the novel. Noting that the movie fails to capture the complexities of the book and instead dazzles the viewer with glitz does not seem like an unfair assessment to me.

Nick Carraway is a depressed alcoholic who is visiting his psychiatrist. He talks about a man named Gatsby, describing him as the most hopeful man he had ever met. When he struggles to articulate his thoughts, his doctor suggests writing it all down, since writing is what brings him solace. He writes of how, in the summer of 1922, he moved from the US Midwest to New York, where he took a job as a bond salesman, and rented a house on Long Island next door to the lavish mansion of Jay Gatsby, a mysterious millionaire who holds extravagant parties. Nick meets up with his cousin Daisy, her cheating husband Tom, then receives an invitation to Gatsby’s next party, despite the fact that nobody who goes to his parties ever actually gets invited, they just turn up……

It can be said that too many reviews of the latest adaption of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby focus on comparing the film to the book, but I don’t really agree with this. When the book is as well known and lauded as this one is, to the point of some claiming it as ‘the great American novel’, I think a reviewer has to make some comparisons. The Great Gatsby, like many great books, is hard to adapt for the screen for several reasons, the main one being that much of the book’s brilliance is its prose, and that just cannot be transferred to a different medium. Add things like a main character who doesn’t really do anything [something which often works in a book but not in a film] and most of the important events happening off-screen, and you wonder why several attempts to adapt this book have gone ahead, but then its themes of idealism, excess and decadence, not to mention its exposing of capitalism’s flashy veneer to expose its rotten core, are always relevant [probably especially at the moment] and the screen always likes a tragic love story doesn’t it?

Well, Baz Luhrmann and co. have done a pretty job, making it the best version so far, even if in the end, it will always work best on the printed page. Though fans of the novel have been complaining about changes, to be honest they are minor, making this quite a faithful adaptation. Unfortunately Lurhmann also seems to be trying to partially remake his Moulin Rouge, with a story that has surprising parallels, additions that make it even more similar like having the book’s narrator Nick writing down the events we witness as a framing device and Nick meeting some partygoers who are introduced much like the weird group Ewan McGregor hung out with, and many of the same devices like the camera swooping down from high up to a particular place, something which I got really tired of the umpteenth time it was employed. As usual, I didn’t see this in 3D, but there are some really forced and fake-looking shots which I can’t imagine working in any format. The CGI is often very obvious, but the film usually looks great, often resembling a movie from the 1950’s in its hues.

There has been much criticism of the use of rap music in this film, but I think this was done to parallel how jazz, much like rap in our times, was a ‘negro’ music that young white people started embracing much to the chagrin of the older generation who didn’t like its supposed negative moral influence. In any case, there’s not very much of it, and this is just Luhrmann being Luhrmann again, filling his film with a variety of often anachronistic musical styles. You either go with his over-the-top, camp style, or you don’t. I find it quite exhilarating, though I can see how some hate it. Either way, he’s a filmmaker with his own unique way of looking at things. The early parts of The Great Gatsby hurl us into the decadent glamour of the Jazz Age in a dizzying manner, but the film does settle down a bit, and while those not familiar with the book may find the second half rather sluggish, that’s the way it was written, and Luhrmann does his best to speed up certain bits, like staging car rides like frantic chases. Luhrmann has always been a highly ‘romantic’ director, and, as before, he never lets style overshadow heart, even it at times it does overshadow substance. Compare this film to what was previously the best known version, the one from 1975, which was lifeless and cold.

Tobey Maguire’s narration is a little tiresome and overall the device of having his character write the story is clunky, though it means we do get to hear some of Fitzgerald’s great words. Leonardo DiCaprio is pretty much the book’s Gatsby come to life. Some have said that it’s too obvious he is acting: well actually that’s right, considering that the character is a fraud. There’s a fine score by Craig Armstrong that underlies the feeling of melancholy. I’m not sure any film of The Great Gatsby can be a total success as one without some major changes [such as leaving out Nick altogether]. This one gets close, though, and if you don’t know anything about the book, it’s still a highly absorbing drama with energetic direction and some deep themes.

"Disrespectful to the author"? Spare me. A work of Gatsby's calibre can withstand a crappy film being made of it. It has in the past, it will in the future. Again, if I want a literary review I will seek out someone qualified to supply one. I don't go to Empire to read about books. You seem to be confusing adaptation with TRANSLATION. Luhrmann has not made a companion piece or an audio book - he has rightfully retold the story in his own way in a new medium.

To say a film can be bad because it is not like its source material is to say that cinema is the inferior medium. To say a film can be "excellent despite differing greatly to the original novel" shows a complete disdain for cinema as an independent artform. The very notion of being "faithful" is juvenile and absurd - the Harry Potter series being a perfect example of how slavish adherence to the source material can suffocate a work.

How many self respecting critics watch The Godfather and speak ad nauseum of the many changes Coppolla made to Puzo's novel? Does the Wizard of Oz deserve its icon status? It's hardly an "accurate" portrayal of Baum's world. Is Cabaret a failure because it bears little resemblance to Isherwood's work and the subsequent stage musical? How about Shakespeare? Must we dismiss his work? The vast majority of his plays were adaptations, and he had little time for "faithfulness" or historical accuracy. How disrespectful of him! I could go on.

This is pretty lowbrow criticism, and I don't think it's too much to ask that a film website regards a movie as a stand-alone work of art. I don't expect this half-baked comparative dreck from a publication like Empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristram

I thought this was a film site, but this critic seems to be more concerned with Fitzgerald's work. I don't care how it compares to the book - if I want the book I will read the book. I want to know if it's a good film. The novel is immaterial. I expect better from a publication for film fans. How disappointing.

What utter nonsense. Empire has reviewed the film, but has done so - properly - in the context of the source text. The Great Gatsby is probably the best known work of American Literature there is, beloved by millions. People will go to the film expecting to see an approximation of the novel, so calling it "immaterial" is remarkably short-sighted, and disrespectful to the author.

Let me put it this way: had the first Harry Potter film not reflected the book, do you really think the reviewer would neglect to mention it? Don't be so silly. Yes, there are some film adaptations that have been excellent despite differing greatly to the original novel (Kubrick's take on The Shining, for instance) but this still warrants mention in the review; in fact, even more so where the transfer to film is not faithful.

Anyway ... there was a churlish part of me incredibly satisfied to read this less-than-glowing review, having not liked a Luhrman film since Strictly Ballroom. The 'style over substance' described is what I've been bemoaning of him for years. I find his films incredibly chaotic and noisy, like extended MTV videos for ADHD sufferers. Romeo + Juliet (even then '+' irritates me) was bad enough but at least had Shakespeare's wonderful verse. Moulin Rouge was just unforgivable - utter vacuous shit with rubbish music and characters I actively disliked, Kidman being worst offender.

Just viewing the trailer for The Great Gatsby made me feel queasy. Another classic drowned under buckets of glitter and hip hop in an attempt to make it appeal to the yoof.

Thank you for your review, Empire; and for sitting through this so I don't have to. The stars are for the review, not the film.

I don't agree that this needs to be a review based on it just being a film. Many people have a real connection and ownership of the story and of the characters that needs to be kept in mind when reviewing it. I've read it and am not a fan of the book but would still watch it and compare it as it is a reworking of it. I will still judge it as a film but also as a version of the book.

I do concede he talks to much about the book and the films relationship to it rather than focussing on how the film affects us as a viewer.

Well it's taken 22 years but we've finally found something more annoying than Kevin Costner's nasally voice during his monologue in the courtroom scene in JFK, isn't that right Old Sport?

By about thirty minutes in I was physically wincing every time he said Old Sport.

I'm glad I saw it in the cinema for the sheer spectacle of it, and there were things about the look of it that I really liked. However I was quite bored in the middle section of the film and really didn't like either Tobey Maguire or Carey Mulligan's performances.

Don't be so ridiculous, of course the novel's important to consider when reviewing an adaptation.

Not really though, a movie is still it's own thing unless you don't just notice the adaptation of it.

Agree up to a point, in his review yesterday Mark Kermode did make it clear that this is Baz Lerhmann's Great Gatsby, not F. Scott Fizgearlds.

The key is to either do something so completely different to the book or find some sort of happy middle ground, don't see the point in just bowing down to the novel and making a film with it in mind.

Then surely it should be judged as that. Otherwise the most relevant thing would see how something worked in the medium of the book (I heard Baz actually makes one character infinitely better with a change of character that is less dubiously anti-Semitic and with a brilliant casting) and how something works in the medium of film, and which one does a better job portraying that or not portraying that in its respective medium. Books and films are very different mediums.

Also, isn't just bowing down to the novel occasionally a good thing if it fits what the filmmaker wants to do? I mean I've seen good movies do that and that it worked well.

But aren't you now considering the film in the context of the book as well?

A film can succeed on it's own, but it's too extreme to suggest something that is an adaptation shouldn't be assessed in the context of the work it is adapting as well. And the review makes clear it is assessing the film as an empty shell with little depth, book or not. It's all show. Even the short line summary makes clear that, book aside, the film is wanting. So the review, as far as I can see, perfectly meets both requirements.

I am not saying disregard the book altgether, but its fair to say there is no point in just doing a rehash of the book but on film. I never expected this to be a literey adaptation as its a Baz Lermann film. It maybe terrible, but it won't be for those reasons.

What can you say really, it's The Great Gatsby by Baz Lurhmann! Understanding & accepting that is crucial to whether you'll enjoy it or not.

The subtleties of Fitzgerald's words are indeed taken apart by a sledgehammer, I didn't like the narrative device of Carroway retelling the story to the shrink, there's too much CGI action for my liking & it felt that the usage of contemporary music (Jay Z, EDM, dubstep) suggested that the film didn't have faith in the excesses of 20s America (one of the most excessive periods of western civilisation) to portray the obscenity of the time.

That said; Lurhmann's razzle dazzle quality just about holds the interest & Di Caprio does indeed make a Great Gatsby - meaning some of the scenes resonate much better than you might expect.

It's all surface - but luckily some of that surface is rather spectacular.

"There’s no argument with the feast of detail on show, the cavorting camera, and Luhrmann’s thrill in massing more and more until the screen is ready to burst. What decadence! What superficiality! What frocks! Not a second comes under-feathered or under-whooshed. So heady is its mix it almost feels as if he is faking Baz Luhrmann."

Wich is exactly the whole point of it, my man.... Here`s someone who clearly didn`t understand Luhrman`s ideas and intentions...

Here`s my mini review:

The Great Gatsby Baz Luhrman, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan working together on a film. That can`t possibly go wrong. Luhrman goes, after the little less artistically succesfull Australia, all the way to get back to the level he reached with Moulin Rouge: an all-star cast giving wonderful performances, big sets, beautiful costumes and a brilliant cinematography. All of that combined gives us a result that is stunning. And afterwards you`ll immediately understand why the film went so far over budget and the plug almost got pulled on the entire production.

Right from the start the pace is high and it takes a while before there is some kind of peace in it. That doesn`t happen until the moment that, at almost 30 minutes of only talking about him Apocalypse Now style, Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) shows his face. The pace goes down somewhat and with his presence lifts the film`s quality to a new level. After that, the party really gets going and it`s a visual fest more than anything. The extravagant party`s that Gatsby throws, the way it is shot, looks amazing. That also is the ending of the first part of the film wich you don`t really want to end. When the actual story gets going, the film takes it back a notch and the quality goes down. Luckily it remains beautiful to watch, especially the flashbacks of Gatby en Daisy`s history together. In the last act, the film picks up the quality of the first part again, that is beautiful and sad at the same time. The finale is the best thing of the film, a (meant as such?) hommage to a very well known classic in film history (telling wich one that is would be a major spoiler).

It took a while, too long in my mind, before Luhrman`s new masterpiece could be enjoyed but it was well worth the wait. The Great Gatsby is enjoying high quality cinema from beginning to end.

9,0/10

< Message edited by TheGodfather -- 29/5/2013 10:05:13 PM >

_____________________________

Jules: "What" ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What? Brett: What? Jules: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?